Financial advisors,financial crisis,and shareholder wealth in bank mergers

This study investigates the relationship between the quality of investment banks and shareholder wealth in bank mergers. Focusing on a US sample of 415 targets and 1066 bidders from 1995 to 2010, I find that the quality of financial advisors appears to have a significant impact on shareholder wealth for bidding firms, but not for target firms. The results suggest that bidders experience higher losses when hiring tier-1 advisors. Further analysis shows that this finding holds during ‘normal’ periods, but not during crisis periods, where I find a significant positive relationship between tier-1 advisors and bidder announcement returns, suggesting that more prestigious financial advisors can offer superior advising services.     

Top-tier advisors and the market feedback dynamics in cross-border M&As

We provide evidence that the presence of top-tier advisors increases managers' propensity to withdraw from cross-border mergers and acquisitions (CBAs) with poor market returns around the announcement. This effect is stronger for private target acquisitions, in which information asymmetry is expected to be more pronounced, and smaller bidders, who are likely to lack the expertise required to process information themselves. This suggests that managers assisted by reputable investment banks consider negative market feedback in informationally challenging deals. Our results are robust to several endogeneity tests. We provide novel inferences about the informative role of stock markets in shaping advisory roles in respect of M&As.     

Top-tier financial advisors,expropriation and Chinese mergers & acquisitions

The empirical literature contains mixed evidence regarding the relationship between advisor reputation and returns in mergers and acquisitions (M&As). However, very few studies consider the detrimental effect of expropriation by controlling shareholders and value creation role of top-tier financial advisors. We revisit the role of financial advisors in M&As by examining whether and why top-tier advisors affect acquisition quality in the Chinese market, finding that they generate substantial value for acquiring shareholders, though value creation is lower for high expropriation-possibility acquirers. We also show that top-tier financial advisors help improve operating performance and reduce bid premiums. The results contribute to the takeover literature by shedding new light on the role of financial advisor in acquisitions.     

Powerful bidders and value creation in M&As

This paper explores the role of bargaining ability in corporate mergers and acquisitions (M&As) by focusing on acquiring firms with ex-ante market power—powerful bidders. Drawing from a bargaining power theoretical stance, we argue that powerful bidders create value from M&A activity by paying comparatively lower premiums. We test our empirical proposition using a sample of 9327 M&A deals announced between 2004 and 2016 by bidders across 30 countries. Contrary to the stylized fact that bidders do not gain from M&A activity, we uncover evidence suggesting that powerful bidders pay lower bid premiums and, consequently, earn positive (and relatively higher) cumulative announcement returns (CARs) from M&A deals. On average, the mean returns to powerful bidders (1.3%) are at least twice those of their less powerful counterparts (0.6%). We identify “low financial constraints” as a potential channel through which higher bidder power translates to improved deal performance. Overall, our results provide new evidence on how industry dynamics, notably bargaining power, influences M&A outcomes.     

Do boutique investment banks have the Midas touch? Evidence from M&As

We study whether the meteoric rise of boutique advisors in mergers and acquisitions (M&As) is justified by their buy-side performance. We find that acquiring firms represented by boutique advisors generate superior short- and long-run abnormal returns over those employing full-service advisors. This effect is mainly prominent in private deals, interindustry mergers, and deals involving inexperienced acquirers, where valuation uncertainty tends to be higher. Overall, our results reflect that acquirer shareholders benefit from boutique investment banks' high level of industry expertise and independent advice, supporting the rising demand for their financial advisory services.     

Hostile bank takeover offers : Analysis and implications

A comparison of the financial characteristics of banks involved in hostile takeover bids with a control group of nonhostile bank mergers indicates: (1) hostile targets experience abnormal returns that are significantly greater than for the targets of nonhostile bank mergers; (2) hostile bidders experience negative abnormal returns that are insignificantly different than for bidders involved in nonhostile bank mergers; (3) hostile bank acquisition announcements produce positive net wealth effects which are larger than the wealth effects of nonhostile acquisitions; (4) a Logit regression model using financial ratios, stock price data, and ownership data is able to distinguish between hostile and nonhostile targets.     

An analysis of advisor choice, fees, and effort in mergers and acquisitions

This paper investigates the choice of financial advisors in mergers and acquisitions, the fees that the targets and the acquiring firms pay to these advisors, and the speed with which advisors complete transactions. Our sample includes 5337 merger deals announced during the period January 1995 to June 2000, that involved publicly traded targets and acquirers. We find that top-tier advisors are more likely to complete deals and to complete them in less time than lower tier advisors. However, the synergistic gains realized by the acquirers declined when top advisors were used. We also find that contingent fees play a significant role in expediting the deal completion. Surprisingly, we find that deals that are initiated by the advisors do not seem to take less time to complete. Our results suggest that the payment of larger advisory fees do not play an important role in determining the likelihood of completing the deal, but they are associated with greater acquisition gains realized by the acquirer. In addition, these synergistic gains are also associated with the switching by acquirers of their financial advisors within the same tier.     

Is the M&A announcement effect different across Europe? More evidences from continental Europe and the UK

The United Kingdom (UK) and Continental Europe are two of the most dynamic markets for mergers and acquisitions in the world. Using a sample of 2823 European acquisitions announced between 2002 and 2010, we investigate the effect of M&A announcements on stock returns of acquiring companies located in Continental Europe and the UK. The analysis is based on characteristics of takeover transactions such as method of payment, listing status of the target company, geographic scope (cross-border vs. domestic), industry relatedness of the bidding and the target company, amongst other factors. We find that European bidders earn positive abnormal returns both in cross-border and domestic acquisitions, and there is a significant difference between the abnormal returns of stock and cash deals, and between acquisitions of listed and unlisted target companies. However, the cross-border wealth effects are not significantly different between the UK and Continental Europe. We find that bidding firm’s shareholders gain more in equity than in cash offers if they are located in the UK and if they acquire unlisted targets. Cash bids for listed targets are associated with higher abnormal returns for bidders located in Continental Europe. We do not find supportive evidence that industry diversification destroys value for shareholders of both Continental European and the UK bidders.     

The usefulness of financial advisors to government-influenced Chinese acquirers

In this study, we examined the usefulness of financial advisors in mergers and acquisitions (M&As) by Chinese acquirers with different levels of government influence. Using a sample of 5614 M&A deals involving unlisted targets in which the use of advisors by acquirers is not mandated, we found that their use is determined by the complexities and information asymmetries associated with such deals, and whether the acquirer has government support. In our analysis of deal outcomes, we also found that the use of advisors increases the likelihood of deal completion and the long-term post-acquisition performance for deals involving acquirers with government control. This indicates an incremental benefit associated with the use of financial advisors for government-controlled acquirers.     

Abnormal returns of Japanese acquisition bidders—impact of pro-M&A legislation in the 1990s

This paper examines the market's reaction to news of corporate mergers and acquisitions (M&A) by Japanese bidders during the 1990s. Domestic versus global bids and pro-M&A legislation are considered as determinants of bidders' abnormal returns. The results show that bidders for domestic targets earn significant abnormal returns after the institutions of pro-M&A legislation in Japan. These findings help determine gains from trading strategies for M&A deals in Japan, and provide insight into the current M&A environment in Japan as shaped by pro-M&A legislation.     

Does bancassurance add value for banks? - Evidence from mergers and acquisitions between European banks and insurance companies

This paper investigates the risk and wealth effects of 72 mergers and acquisitions between banks in Europe and insurance companies during the period 1989-2004. The empirical results indicate that acquirers’ total risks remain constant relative to the world, home market indices and home banking indices. There are no changes for the systematic risks (beta) with respect to the world market index or the home banking index. After removing world and home market indices effect, systematic risk against home banking index reduce significantly for domestic deals. In addition, positive wealth effects are documented. Two factors have contributed to the bidders’ cumulative abnormal returns (CARs): relative deal size and being a serial acquirer. Finally, change of beta shows negative relations with CARs.     

Acquisitions and funding conditions

We find evidence that aggregate funding conditions play an instrumental role in mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Funding conditions impact the benefits, participants and the number of deals transacted and this impact extends well beyond merger waves. Specifically, when aggregate funding conditions are favorable, the merger market is especially active and small, financially-constrained firms participate heavily. These same firms, however, are largely absent from the deal market when funding conditions are tight. Furthermore, investors view deals during favorable environments as relatively attractive, particularly if the deals are initiated by small bidders. In contrast, deals transacted by large firms during easy-money periods are viewed as value-destroying. We also document that these value-destroying deals are particularly prevalent among large bidders with significant potential for agency costs. Overall, our results suggest that aggregate funding conditions do not merely cause bidders to adjust the scope of their investment decisions consistent with capital rationing, but rather, the changing state of aggregate funding appears to significantly determine the size and composition of the M&A potential bidder pool.     

Bidder returns in interstate and intrastate bank acquisitions

Returns to bidders are examined for 108 bank acquisitions over the 1981–1987 period. These returns provide evidence on the conflict-of-interest hypothesis and the hubris hypothesis, both of which predict negative returns to bidders, versus the shareholder wealth maximization model that predicts positive (or at least non-negative) returns. Further evidence on these hypotheses is provided from the returns on 18 defensive acquisitions. Consistent with the conflict-of-interest and hubris hypotheses, announcement period returns are negative and statistically significant both for interstate and intrastate acquisitions. However, bidder returns to interstate bank acquisitions do not differ significantly from intrastate mergers.     

When It Pays to Pay Your Investment Banker: New Evidence on the Role of Financial Advisors in M&As

We provide new evidence on the role of financial advisors in M&As. Contrary to prior studies, top‐tier advisors deliver higher bidder returns than their non‐top‐tier counterparts but in public acquisitions only, where the advisor reputational exposure and required skills set are relatively larger. This translates into a $65.83 million shareholder gain for an average bidder. The improvement comes from top‐tier advisors' ability to identify more synergistic combinations and to get a larger share of synergies to accrue to bidders. Consistent with the premium price–premium quality equilibrium, top‐tier advisors charge premium fees in these transactions.     

Announcement effects of bank mergers in Europe and the US

We investigate the announcement effect of large bank mergers in the European and US stock market. Cumulative abnormal returns are calculated on the basis of the performance vis-à-vis the market and a sector index. Mergers result in small positive abnormal returns. Target banks realize significantly higher returns than bidders. In many respects, there is a difference between the announcement effects of European bank mergers compared to those in the US.     

The effect of bidder conservatism on M&A decisions: Text-based evidence from US 10-K filings

This paper examines whether and how bidders' conservative tone in 10-K filings influences the subsequent mergers and acquisitions (M&A) investment decisions of these US firms from 1996 to 2013. Based on 39,260 firm-year observations, we find, consistent with behavioural consistency theory, that conservative bidders are less likely to engage in M&A deals. Further, those that decide to engage in M&As are likely to acquire public targets and within-industry firms. These bidders are inclined to employ more stock acquisitions than cash acquisitions. Our results also indicate that conservative bidders experience abnormally poor stock returns around the announcements of M&A investments. This provides new insights on the mechanism through which bidders' sentiments influence shareholders' wealth. Overall, these findings highlight the implications of the textual sentiment of corporate disclosure for the forecasting of corporate investment and financing decisions. Our results have practical implications, since they shed light on the value relevance of the information content of major Securities Exchange Commission (SEC)-mandated 10-K filings.     

Acquisitions,Overconfident Managers and Self‐attribution Bias

We examine whether acquisitions by overconfident managers generate superior abnormal returns and whether managerial overconfidence stems from self‐attribution. Self‐attribution bias suggests that overconfidence plays a greater role in higher order acquisition deals predicting lower wealth effects for higher order acquisition deals. Using two alternative measures of overconfidence (1) high order acquisition deals and (2) insider dealings we find evidence supporting the view that average stock returns are related to managerial overconfidence. Overconfident bidders realise lower announcement returns than rational bidders and exhibit poor long‐term performance. Second, we find that managerial overconfidence stems from self‐attribution bias. Specifically, we find that high‐order acquisitions (five or more deals within a three‐year period) are associated with lower wealth effects than low‐order acquisitions (first deals). That is, managers tend to credit the initial success to their own ability and therefore become overconfident and engage in more deals. In our analysis we control for endogeneity of the decision to engage in high‐order acquisitions and find evidence that does not support the self‐selection of excessive acquisitive firms. Our analysis is robust to the influence of merger waves, industry shocks, and macroeconomic conditions.     

LABOR MARKET CONSEQUENCES FOR BUSY DIRECTORS: EVIDENCE FROM INTERNATIONAL MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS

Using 13,233 acquisitions from 57 countries, we examine merger and acquisition (M&A) decisions made by busy boards. We find that few busy acquirers originate from emerging markets and that they tend to undertake cross‐border mergers, favor public targets, finance with cash and equity, pursue nondiversifying mergers, avoid targets with multiple bidders, and long‐term underperform relative to nonbusy acquirers. Importantly, we discover a nonlinear relation between an acquirer's board busyness and merger announcement returns. We find that the labor market penalizes directors who approve bad acquisitions but does not reward them for good mergers. We find a similar nonlinear relation between an acquirer's board busyness and its long‐term performance along with a suggestion of an optimal board busyness.     

Does the Stock Market Compensate Banks for Diversifying into the Insurance Business?

This paper explores a wide range of corporate restructurings, all available deals from wire services, in the banking and insurance sectors that led to bancassurance ventures. An event study methodology is employed to calculate excess returns on and around the deals’ announcement date. Using both univariate and multivariate analysis the paper finds bank driven mergers, deal's size and regional categorization all triggering positive and significant market reactions. Unlike the univariate framework, multivariate analysis shows that geographic focus and language are not significant factors. The results also indicate that markets are indifferent with respect to bank withdrawals from the bank‐insurance operations. Finally, Canadian, U.S. and European bank‐insurance deals produce positive results, while Australasian bidders offer statistically insignificant equity returns.     

National Culture and Takeover Contest Outcomes

We examine the effects of cultural differences on the outcome of takeover contests. Our main focus is on individuality, which we posit to have an effect on firm behavior in international takeover contests. In a sample of international acquisitions with bidders from multiple countries, we find that individuality positively relates to the probability of placing the winning bid. We further find that takeover contest winners with high individuality scores experience lower announcement returns. Our results are consistent with the literature that links individuality to overconfidence. Our evidence suggests that firms should control culture‐related behavioral biases in their mergers and acquisitions activity.